[MacPorts] #49721: dangerous bug in Qt5

[MacPorts]

#49721: dangerous bug in Qt5
--------------------------+------------------------
  Reporter:  rjvbertin@…  |      Owner:  mcalhoun@…
      Type:  defect       |     Status:  assigned
  Priority:  Normal       |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports        |    Version:
Resolution:               |   Keywords:
      Port:  qt5          |
--------------------------+------------------------

Comment (by rjvbertin@…):

 Replying to [comment:12 mcalhoun@…]:

 > I am a full supporter of cutting edge experimentation but only in some
 sort of -devel port.[[BR]]
 > Personally, I use Qt for my work and need at least one non-experimental
 version around.

 Well, that's just one more argument to have a qt5-kde port, and for the
 approach I'm taking with the patch in question. If you read my earlier
 explanation, it doesn't change anything if you don't activate the new
 code-paths it provides. That is also a prerequisite for getting it
 accepted upstream, because Apple won't accept applications using XDG-
 compliant locations in their App Store.

 Since you mention it: does it matter for your work whether Qt applications
 use ~/Library/Preferences and ~/Library/Application Support or rather
 ~/.config and ~/.local/share ? It's the possibility to support both
 options that makes my patch so complicated (and hard to defend without
 being able to refer to real-world use cases).

 > Perhaps this is the point of confusion.[[BR]]
 > When I say merged, I mean merged into the git repository that Qt uses
 for development.[[BR]]
 > I do not mean released.[[BR]]

 Oh, I know that. The point remains that Qt's vetting process is one I only
 engage in if I'm more or less certain that my proposition will be
 accepted. And when that proposition isn't changing or intersecting with
 something else I'm working on, because their "gerrit" is *really* annoying
 in that case.

 > If you look at certain changes ([https://codereview.qt-
 project.org/#/c/140876/ 140876],
 > [https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/125968/ 125968],
 > [https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/127759/ 127759] to name just a
 few), they have been merged but not released.[[BR]]
 > In fact, it may be quite some time (months) before they are released,
 but since they have been vetted and approved by upstream developers, they
 are excellent candidates for patchfiles.[[BR]]
 > For those types of changes, there is indeed great use in incorporating
 them into MacPorts.[[BR]]
 > In fact, Qt will not fully build on El Capitan without at least
 [https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/127759/ one of them].

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/49721#comment:13>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X